Man Of Steel (Zack Snyder, 2013) - 2 stars

After the mess that was Superman Returns, the film-watching world has been skeptical about a Superman reboot. But this being Hollywood in the 21^st Century, it was obviously just a matter of time before Warner Bros and DC brought him back. Starring Henry Cavill, who lost out to Brandon Routh for the role in the previous installment, Man Of Steel chronicles the birth of Kal-El, his childhood as Clark Kent and his early days as Superman, attempting to stop the rebellion of General Zod (Michael Shannon) and his plan to exterminate humans in order for kryptonians to survive on Earth. Director Zack Snyder has opted to make a darker telling of the superhero’s origin story, as made critically and commercially popular by Christopher Nolan (who also produces and co-writes Man Of Steel) in his Dark Knight trilogy.

Unfortunately, there hasn’t been a more embarrassingly or shamelessly patriotic film since Armageddon. And unluckily for Man Of Steel, the Michael Bay comparisons do not end there. Half of the film is made up of scenes inside governmental and military bases, needlessly bombarding us with line after line of exposition and jargon, and not since the latter stages of the Transformers franchise, have I actually been bored by action sequences.

A big part of the problem is that the film is tonally awry. While it force-feeds us the plot, it is coy about mentioning ‘Superman’ and ‘Metropolis’ and while, for the most part, Snyder tries to copy Nolan’s take on the superhero film, the odd joke and sarcastic comment make it feel more like a Marvel picture. But these jokes are so few, that when they do happen, they fall on their face, harder than a human at the mercy of General Zod.

I struggle to work out how much input Zack Snyder had with this film. With Nolan’s Dark Knight co-creator David S. Goyer writing, and Hans Zimmer scoring with what could easily be a Dark Knight B-side, this is certainly not a harsh question to ask. It is well known that while making both 300 and Watchmen, Snyder used the graphic novels not just as a basis for creation, but as storyboards for plagiarising, and while Man Of Steel is obviously based upon characters from DC comics, it is not a page for page adaptation of any specific one. I therefore fear Snyder may have got lost with the lack of restraints, or with being faced with his own decisions to make, and therefore simply relied on others to help him through.

The Nolan input is clear. The Bay comparisons have been made. And the extent to which the film uses anamorphic lens flare and air-born crash zooms almost grants a Creative Consultant credit for JJ Abrams. Simply put, Snyder does not know what he is doing. If this was trying to do what Batman Begins did so well, it has failed. This is most certainly not Superman Starts. Which leaves both DC and Warner Bros. in a very uncompromising position. With Nolan’s Batman trilogy over, and with films like Man Of Steel and The Green Lantern to fill it’s boots and bridge the gap until the impending Justice League movie, they are going to have to make on hell of a Wonder Woman film to keep this sinking ship afloat.

RED (Rob Schwenkte, 2010) - 2 stars

RED stars Bruce Willis as retired CIA analyst Frank Moses, now deemed Retired and Extremely Dangerous by his old employers, who now hunt for him and his old colleagues, played by Morgan Freeman, Helen Mirren and John Malkovich, all during the first few days of Moses meeting the woman with whom he has fallen in love, Mark Louise Parker’s Pension Office customer service assistant Sarah.

Frankly, witnessing Dame Helen Mirren pulling the trigger on a semi automatic weapon, or John Malkovich screaming and chasing after agents with a bomb attached to his chest, is as soul destroying as it is hilarious. A high percentage of great actors and actresses get to certain age and start taking jobs that are far beneath them and this film just appears to be that gateway epitomized, the realisation that things for these four may never be the same again. Granted, it is not as black and white as that- Bruce Willis jumped the fence years ago with the likes of What Just Happened in 2007 and also Cop Out just months before RED, and this is not to say that we will never see Mirren at her best again, but with a collection of eleven Academy Award wins and nominations between just three of the four leads, this is a clear sign that the good days may well be over for this bunch. Throw 60’s and 70’s Hollywood heavyweights Ernest Borgnine and Richard Dreyfuss into the mix, and the outcome is a blatant list of aging, out of work ex-A-Listers attempting to ruin years of solid work and back catalogues.  

The fact is that this is not an exciting film. It is indeed amusing in places, mainly because of Mary Louise Parker’s deadpan comments, but the action is silly and incomparably ludicrous. I am, in particular, referring to Willis standing up out of a spinning car and the ease in which the characters can infiltrate CIA headquarters with the help of a little fancy dress. The heavily stylised cinematography and use of special effects is fairly mentionable, but I fear the mention should probably go to the artists of the graphic novel, which will in no doubt have been used as a pre-existing set of storyboards, a technique many lazy directors now fall back on with adaptations of this genre.

The makers were onto something, but took it too far. I would much rather have seen a film inspired by the graphic novel instead of based on it, one that tells the story of a retired CIA agent now trying to cope with pensions, dressing gowns and the woman on the end of the phone he has fallen in love with. The romance element between Willis and Parker is fun to watch, enticing and engaging, but unfortunately the action, which takes up most of the running time and energy of the film, is simply run of the mill stock action.

The result is not necessarily a bad film, just a highly disappointing one, which, in my eyes, is worse. Frank Moses and his crew may well be Retired and Extremely Dangerous, however the actors themselves, after this less than dangerous display, should seriously think about retiring before it gets too much worse.

The Great Gatsby (Baz Luhrmann, 2013) - 3 stars

This year’s adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby has been long awaited. Aside from being one of the most famous novels of all time, it is directed by the glitzy and visual director Baz Luhrmann, and with Leonardo DiCaprio starring, it certainly had a lot of hype to live up to.

DiCaprio steals the show and, like Gatsby, keeps the film afloat when other elements seem doomed for the seabed. He is a joy to watch from his intriguing and captivating introduction to his desperate and destructive finale. Seemingly appearing out of thin air, with a past shrouded in mist and with, on the surface at least, an enviable demeanor and lifestyle, he pleasantly evokes Fight Club’s Tyler Durden. Luhrmann has said his casting of Gatsby had to be a great actor and a star, and in a world where the star persona is regrettably being overshadowed by overnight celebrityism, DiCaprio is one of the last good guys standing, and the perfect choice for the role.

Carey Mulligan as Daisy Buchanan is also worth noting, in a role that really allows to her to use her innocence and natural beauty to great value, but unfortunately Joel Edgerton’s performance wavers, while Tobey Maguire, hazy-eyed and naïve as Nick Carraway, seems to have unfortunately not yet grown out of his red and blue spandex from a decade ago. His voiceover becomes tiring very quickly, which unfortunately devalues scenes and takes centre stage when the audience would much rather be allowed the luxury of seeing a scene play out rather than have Maguire paraphrase for them. A strange and incomprehensible decision to bookend the film with a vignette of Carraway writing the story from a sanitarium distances the audience and adds another unnecessary layer to keep cutting back to.

We know Luhrmann is a fan of mixing contemporary music with period pieces- remember the rendition of Smells Like Teen Spirit in his 2001 film Moulin Rouge!, but despite the great use of a Jay-Z soundtrack, in conjunction with the depiction of drinking and partying, it sometimes feels like Project X has gone back in time, and this cheapens an expensive, lavish piece. Gatsby’s own parties are full of the grandiose extravagance we are expecting, but if only we hadn’t been in the 1920s frat-style party ten minutes before, the effect would have been so much greater.

With pushbacks and a marketing budget bigger than Gatsby’s annual spending allowance, there was obviously a lot of hype and anticipation surrounding the film. Unfortunately I’m not sure it has succeeded in fulfilling this expectation.

As I left the theatre, I was unable to put my finger on how I felt about it. Did it tell me the story of Gatsby? Yes. Did I enjoy it? Yes, partly. Did it make me feel anything? No, not really. And therein lies the problem. There is enough flamboyancy and large-scale magnificence for any Luhrmann fan to be fulfilled, but in a story of character and depth, this is not enough. The special moments in the film were burdened with a wearisome voiceover, and as much style as Luhrmann brought to the table with this offering, it seems he sacrificed substance. DiCaprio is certainly The Great Gatsby, but the film is simply The Gatsby.   

Hitchcock (Sacha Gervasi, 2012) - 2½ stars

2012 has seen two screen depictions of the so-called Master of Suspense. First Toby Jones took the role in the BBC’s The Girl and now Anthony Hopkins tries his hand in Sacha Gervasi’s simply titled Hitchcock, allowing us a sneaky peephole look at the build up to, production of and the reception to, Alfred Hitchcock’s game changing horror film Psycho.

The film does not waste any time with suggesting its motifs. In a film about such a wonderful crafter of story and cinema, you could be forgiven for expecting subtlety to be at the forefront of Gervasi’s mind. Sadly not- the first act is as subtle as a breadknife in pointing out all the obvious characteristics we should be looking out for with Hitchcock and his ‘new’ film. Yes he had an obsession with blonde leading ladies. Yes he drank a lot. Yes Psycho was influenced partly by the real killer Ed Gein. It should not have taken awful sexualised puns with Janet Leigh, and an almost farcical first scene in which Hitchcock speaks to us directly while standing next to the Wisconsin killer on which Norman Bates was slightly based. And they unfortunately lower both the tone of the film and the audience’s expectations rather quickly. From there on, the film becomes a well-cast but ultimately messily handled drama about this period of Hitchcock’s life.

But even within the tight confines of looking at Hitchcock at one point in his career, at one movie he made, there is still too much going on for a film that runs only just over the ninety minute mark. Should we focus on his domestic relationship with wife Alma Reville, as she sneaks off to spend time with a younger writer, Danny Huston’s Whitfield Cook? I hope not: these scenes are more painful than being stabbed to death in the shower, playing out like a poor American soap opera. Instead, maybe we should turn our attention to Hitchcock’s inner struggle with the film at hand, while he navigates actors, self-finance and visits from serial killers in his dreams. But while the latter is slightly more interesting for the audience and better crafted by the director, the former seems to take first place in terms of screen time. By the conclusion of the film, the two trains of thought come together, and Alfred and Alma’s marital subplot has enough weight to carry what turns out to be an enjoyable and rewarding ending, but until then we simply seem to be biding our time. And not in the classic Hitchockian sense of the phrase.

As Hopkins keeps his head as Hitchcock (although slightly lacking the creepiness that Jones played so well) it is his supporting cast that catches the audience’s eye. Scarlett Johansson is excellent as Janet Leigh while Helen Mirren plays the torn and tormented Alma brilliantly. James D’Arcy’s Anthony Perkins and Jessica Biel as the almost ignored Vera Miles are also worth a mention.

Hitchcock is an interesting, easy to watch, insight into one of Hollywood’s greats, both in terms of the film it depicts and its maker. However, my advice to anyone with only time to watch one of the two: choose Psycho any day and imagine for yourself the behind the scenes drama if you so desire. 

Beasts Of The Southern Wild (Benh Zeitlin, 2012) - 5 stars

Beasts Of The Southern Wild is the debut feature for writer/director Benh Zeitlin, and a sure shot to stardom for both him and the two leads also in their debut roles. It is at once a realistic and magical story, that unfolds through the eyes of six-year-old Hushpuppy (the Oscar-nominated Quvenzhané Wallis) in the wake of the flooding of her isolated everglades society, and as her father’s (Dwight Henry) mysterious heart condition worsens. It is a beautiful tale of maturity and realisation that will have you laughing, crying and empathising more than you have in a long while.

The film is shot using handheld cameras, unconventional framing and jump cuts, suggesting a documentary feel to the film, yet we are still privy to the emotion of Hushpuppy, something that could easily be missing in such a style. The camera is often at her height, and the use of her as narrator helps us attain a connection, although it is simply Wallis’ performance that keeps us there with her for the duration, a stunning turn for the eight-year-old, the likes of which have not been seen for years.

The documentary style is intertwined with ambiguous visuals- are they Hushpuppy’s dreams or are they really happening? – including the icecaps melting, and prehistoric aurochs being unleashed and stampeding towards Hushpuppy’s bayou community. Then there is the narrative strand of Hushpuppy’s estranged mother. At all times faceless, we are never sure whether the woman Hushpuppy finds solace with is her or not. These magical vignettes are seamlessly placed in the film, giving the whole story a mystical edge, adding another layer to a film that may otherwise fall into the trap of being simply affecting and nothing else.

The use of the melting icecaps, and the fact that a storm nearly wipes out their tribe-like existence (an obvious nod to Katrina) may seem a little preachy at times, but no more so than Pixar’s environmental references, which hardly attract criticism.

What is worth noting is how apart from one mention of New Orleans, their island is fictional and there are no other temporal or spatial anchors. Therefore, their lifestyle is simultaneously regressive, almost caveman like and yet post-apocalyptic. The relationship between Wink and Hushpuppy is one of harsh love, with survival at the core- they are not idealists. There are no pretentions for them, and this comes across in the filmmaking too. Wink nearly always refers to Hushpuppy as ‘man’ and even suggests she will be ‘king’- with no maternal figure and unconventional society dynamics, everyone has developed (or regressed to) a hunter-gatherer instinct.  At age six, Hushpuppy has her own lodgings, cooks for herself, and when her father becomes to ill, she adventures and discovers by herself too. What seems like a terrible nightmare, is for some, a reality, a realisation that Zeitlin is attempting to get across to first-world audiences. The scenes in the hospital are not an attack at corporations and consumerism but a primitive hatred of the ‘different’ – infrastructure and modern medicines are the enemy.

This film teeters on the edge of being too serious, but ultimately falls on the right side of the levee, allowing us a sensitive, beautifully crafted look in at another world, another time of human existence that is current and historical, real and fantasy.